Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

SMamba: Sparse Mamba for Event-based Object Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SMamba shows event-camera detection can match transformer accuracy at a fraction of the compute by scanning only spatiotemporally continuous tokens.

desk verdict Worth a look for the STCA and IPL-Scan ideas, but the paper's 'superior efficiency' claim is undercut by its own runtime column: SMamba is about 2x slower than RVT-B in end-to-end latency. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11971 v1 pith:MPH32HG4 submitted 2025-01-21 cs.CV

Nan Yang , Yang Wang , Zhanwen Liu , Meng Li , Yisheng An , Xiangmo Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords event-basedobjectdetectionstatespacemodelsselectivescantokensparsificationspatiotemporalcontinuityeventcamerasMambabackbone
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Event cameras record only brightness changes, so most of a scene is silent and much of the signal is noise; transformer detectors that process every token uniformly waste computation on these uninformative regions. This paper sets out to show that a Mamba-style detector can exploit that sparsity without giving up global modeling. Its SMamba architecture scores tokens by the spatiotemporal continuity of the events inside them, discards low-scoring tokens, reorders the survivors so informative tokens are scanned close together, and adds global channel interaction. On Gen1, 1Mpx, and eTram it reports the best or tied mAP among the compared methods with backbone FLOPs reduced by 22–31% against its own no-sparsification baseline. The result matters because it suggests event-camera detection can get transformer-level accuracy at a fraction of the compute.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Spatio-Temporal Continuity Assessment (STCA) module, which computes a per-token information score by accumulating event timestamps at each pixel, average-pooling to token resolution, and smoothing with a Gaussian neighborhood weight; the threshold $\alpha = \frac{\sum S_{st}}{\beta\, H W / P^2}$ then converts scores into a binary sparsification map. This map drives two further components. The Information-Prioritized Local Scan (IPL-Scan) sorts token windows by their maximum continuity score and scans them with S6 blocks, so high-information tokens have short scan distances while local neighbors stay together; Global Channel Interaction (GCI) flattens the feature map along spatial dimensions and runs bidirectional channel scans through S6 plus a $1\times 1$ convolution, letting each channel absorb global spatial context when interacting with other channels. Together these modules let a sparse set of tokens still receive global spatial and channel modeling.

What would settle it

Inject spatially clustered, temporally continuous synthetic noise into eTram test events and compare SMamba's mAP against its no-sparsification baseline: if the accuracy gap widens as burst noise increases, or if a measurable share of ground-truth object tokens falls below the continuity threshold, the assumption that noise is isolated and discontinuous is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spatiotemporal distribution of events alone is enough to identify informative tokens, and that an information-prioritized selective scan can keep global context while ignoring noise and empty regions. Concretely, SMamba reaches 50.4 mAP on Gen1 at 2.4G backbone FLOPs and 16.1M parameters, matching ERGO-12's mAP with about 5% of its FLOPs, and 49.3 on 1Mpx at 7.4G FLOPs. On eTram it reports 32.6 mAP at 6.6G FLOPs, beating the transformer baselines compared. In all three datasets the sparsified model improves on its own non-sparse baseline in both accuracy and cost, which the paper presents as evidence that discarding non-continuous event tokens is not just a compute saving but also a noise-suppression mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that true objects produce events that are spatially close and temporally continuous while noise is spatially isolated and temporally discontinuous, so the continuity score can reliably tell them apart; as the paper's own limitation notes, large bursts or clusters of noise break this assumption and can cause informative tokens to be discarded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A compact 16–17M parameter detector can match or beat transformer baselines on event-camera detection, so global modeling does not require the full compute of self-attention.
  • Sparsification guided by a hand-crafted continuity score beats learned scoring (variance, entropy, and the learnable scoring module) in the reported comparisons, suggesting the prior itself carries much of the signal.
  • Combining Bidi-Scan with IPL-Scan improves mAP by 2.4 points over either alone on eTram, indicating that global scan order and information-prioritized reordering are complementary rather than redundant.
  • Placing global channel interaction only in the last two stages gives the best accuracy at the lowest cost, so 3D global modeling matters most when features are semantically rich.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the STCA scoring is attached to the raw event stream rather than to learned features, so the same module could be lifted into other event-based tasks such as segmentation or tracking, provided the continuity prior holds.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's stated limitation—noise bursts or clusters violate the independence assumption—points to a concrete extension: a learned or denoised continuity score that distinguishes semantically continuous noise from object motion, which would make the sparsification robust in crowded scenes.
  • Editorial inference: because FLOPs are reported for the backbone and runtime for one platform, the practical efficiency claim would be strengthened by measuring energy or latency on event-camera hardware, where sparse scanning may or may not translate to real speedups.
  • Editorial inference: the threshold formula ties the discarding rate to a manually tuned beta; a sensitivity analysis across beta and scene sparsity levels would reveal how much of the reported trade-off depends on this hyperparameter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SMamba, a Mamba-based backbone for event-based object detection that combines a Spatio-Temporal Continuity Assessment (STCA) module for token sparsification, an Information-Prioritized Local Scan (IPL-Scan) for spatial scanning, and a Global Channel Interaction (GCI) module for channel-wise modeling. The method is evaluated on Gen1, 1Mpx, and eTram, and the paper claims superior accuracy and efficiency over existing CNN, Transformer, and SSM baselines, with code released. The main evidence is the mAP/FLOPs/parameter/runtime tables plus ablations of the scoring module, scanning strategy, and GCI placement.

Significance. If the accuracy-efficiency trade-off claimed in Tables 1 and 2 is reliable, SMamba is a practically interesting design: it retains global spatial and channel modeling while using sparsification to reduce backbone FLOPs, and it ships code and evaluates on three datasets, including a less-studied traffic-monitoring dataset. The ablations are informative and the visualizations support the claim that the sparsification map is scene-adaptive. However, the central efficiency claim is currently weakened by the reported end-to-end latencies, and the numerical margins over the authors' own baseline are small enough that multi-seed statistics are needed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Quantitative Results, Tables 1 and 2] The central accuracy-efficiency claim is not supported by the reported runtime. SMamba's end-to-end latency is 24.0 ms on Gen1, 26.0 ms on 1Mpx, and 25.2 ms on eTram, versus 10.2/11.9/11.9 ms for RVT-B and 9.4/10.9/10.9 ms for S5-ViT-B; the sparsification itself reduces latency by only 4-8% relative to the non-sparse baseline (25.2->24.0, 27.5->26.0, 27.5->25.2). Because the FLOPs numbers are backbone-only, the statement that SMamba achieves 'superior performance and greater efficiency' conflates backbone complexity with end-to-end cost. Please report end-to-end FLOPs, hardware/software details, batch size, measurement repetitions, and latency under identical conditions, and soften the efficiency claim accordingly.
  2. [Eq. (4), Spatio-Temporal Continuity Assessment] The score S_t in Eq. (4) sums absolute event timestamps, which is not a temporal continuity measure. It is not invariant under shifting the event stream in time and it grows monotonically with event time, so a single isolated noise event at a late timestamp can score higher than a dense train of early activity events. This undermines the premise of STCA. Please replace it with a genuine continuity statistic such as event count in a short sliding window, inverse inter-event interval, or local event rate, and validate the chosen statistic against the activity/noise distinction.
  3. [Tables 1-6, Experimental Setup] The headline gains are small: 0.3-0.5 mAP over the authors' own baseline, 0.6 mAP over SAST-CB on 1Mpx, and 2.6 mAP on eTram, yet no error bars, number of seeds, or significance tests are reported. Without these, it is not possible to determine whether the claimed improvements are beyond run-to-run variation. Please report mean plus/minus standard deviation over at least three seeds for the main comparisons and ablations, and indicate statistical significance for the differences that drive the conclusions.
  4. [Eqs. (5)-(6), Implementation Details] The threshold in Eq. (6) is alpha = mean(S_st)/beta, with beta manually adjusted, and the Gaussian variance sigma in Eq. (5) is also a free parameter; no sensitivity analysis is provided for either. Since the sparsification ratio and the accuracy-efficiency trade-off are direct functions of beta, the paper should report mAP, FLOPs, and latency at several beta and sigma values; otherwise the chosen operating point cannot be judged robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The phrase 'spare event data' should be 'sparse event data'.
  2. [Experimental Setup, Metrics] The definition 'FLOPs (Floating Point Operations Per Second)' is incorrect; FLOPs is the number of floating-point operations, not a rate. Please correct the definition.
  3. [Spatio-Temporal Continuity Assessment] The notation is inconsistent: S_t is used for both the full-resolution map and the pooled map, and Eq. (5) writes S_t^q for neighbors after the text describes aggregation in pixel coordinates. Please clarify the indexing.
  4. [Limitation] The limitation statement says the method assumes 'temporal and spatial independence of event noise,' but Eqs. (4)-(7) assume noise is spatially isolated and temporally discontinuous, not statistically independent. Please align the wording with the actual assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SMamba's claims are empirical benchmark and ablation results, not derivations that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no theoretical derivation whose conclusion is equivalent to its assumptions by construction. The STCA sparsification threshold in Eq. (6) is an adaptive heuristic controlled by a manually tuned scaling factor β, and its usefulness is evaluated on external datasets (Gen1, 1Mpx, eTram) and against alternative scoring methods (variance, entropy, and a learnable scoring module) in Table 3; the reported mAP gains are therefore not forced by the definition of the score map. IPL-Scan reorders tokens using the same STCA score map, but the claim that this ordering improves detection is an ablative empirical claim (Table 4), not an identity. GCI is compared against an MLP baseline (Table 5) rather than being assumed effective. The paper's self-citations appear only as general background on intelligent systems and prior work by the same group; none of them is load-bearing for the central accuracy-efficiency claim. The runtime versus FLOPs discrepancy noted in the paper's own tables is a substantive correctness and evaluation concern, but it is not circularity: it concerns whether the efficiency claim is well supported, not whether the result is predetermined by the method's inputs. Overall, the central claims are externally benchmarked and ablated, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not rest on new physics or new mathematical objects. It rests on known SSM machinery, standard event preprocessing, and an empirically motivated spatiotemporal continuity prior. The main hand-set values are beta and sigma, which are not reported.

free parameters (2)
  • sparsity scaling factor beta = not reported
    Introduced in Eq. (6) to modulate the discard threshold alpha = sum(Sst)/(beta H W/P^2); manually adjusted, with no value or sensitivity analysis given, and it directly controls how many tokens are pruned.
  • Gaussian variance sigma = not reported
    Used in Eq. (5) for distance-weighted aggregation of the continuity score; no value or sensitivity is reported.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Mamba S6 selective scan provides global sequence modeling with linear complexity.
    Adopted from Gu and Dao and used throughout Sparse SS2D and GCI; treated as background, not proved in this paper.
  • domain assumption Activity events are spatially proximate and temporally continuous; noise events are spatially isolated and temporally discontinuous.
    This is the prior underlying STCA in the Spatial-Temporal Continuity Assessment section; the paper itself flags its limits for burst noise in the Limitation paragraph.
  • domain assumption Event streams can be converted to voxel tensors and tokenized without losing information needed for detection.
    Voxelization follows Zhu et al. 2019 and RVT preprocessing; no analysis in this paper of information loss from binning.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SMamba: Sparse Mamba for Event-based Object Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MPH32HG4

@misc{pith2026250111971,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SMamba: Sparse Mamba for Event-based Object Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MPH32HG4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11971}
}
read the original abstract

Transformer-based methods have achieved remarkable performance in event-based object detection, owing to the global modeling ability. However, they neglect the influence of non-event and noisy regions and process them uniformly, leading to high computational overhead. To mitigate computation cost, some researchers propose window attention based sparsification strategies to discard unimportant regions, which sacrifices the global modeling ability and results in suboptimal performance. To achieve better trade-off between accuracy and efficiency, we propose Sparse Mamba (SMamba), which performs adaptive sparsification to reduce computational effort while maintaining global modeling capability. Specifically, a Spatio-Temporal Continuity Assessment module is proposed to measure the information content of tokens and discard uninformative ones by leveraging the spatiotemporal distribution differences between activity and noise events. Based on the assessment results, an Information-Prioritized Local Scan strategy is designed to shorten the scan distance between high-information tokens, facilitating interactions among them in the spatial dimension. Furthermore, to extend the global interaction from 2D space to 3D representations, a Global Channel Interaction module is proposed to aggregate channel information from a global spatial perspective. Results on three datasets (Gen1, 1Mpx, and eTram) demonstrate that our model outperforms other methods in both performance and efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11971 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The event sparsity statistics on three datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The architecture of SMamba. Given the input event stream, the STCA module (as illustrated in (d)) evaluates the information content of tokens based on spatiotemporal continuity and generates a sparsification map to guide the sparsification operation. Simultaneously, the event stream is preprocessed and transferred to four stages for comprehensive global interactions across spatial and channel dimensions. The first t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sparse SS2D. For ease of observation, a large patch size is utilized for tokenization. The uninformative and noisy tokens (gray regions) are discarded from the calculation and the kept tokens (yellow regions) are expanded into three scanning sequences by Bidi-Scan and IPL-Scan, each sequence is processed in parallel using separate S6 blocks. The window sorting results of IPL-Scan are indicated at the center of each … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bidirectional Channel Scan. The feature map is unfolded along the spatial dimension and arranged into two sequences along the channel direction, which are then input into S6 for full spatial-level channel information interaction. scene-adaptability of our method. Final…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualizations of raw events, score map, sparsifi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The feature visualization of Bidi-Scan, Cross-Scan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Focus Through Motion: RGB-Event Collaborative Token Sparsification for Efficient Object Detection

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FocusMamba uses event-camera activity to adaptively prune uninformative tokens in both RGB and event streams, improving detection accuracy and cutting FLOPs.

  2. Static in Frames, Dynamic in Events: Rethinking Features in Event Cameras as Motion Cues

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Harris eigenvalues and spatiotemporal density values from event cameras encode motion direction and, when added to an optical flow network, improve accuracy in data-scarce settings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Cordone, L.; Miramond, B.; and Thierion, P. 2022. Object detection with spiking neural networks on automotive event data. In 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 1--8. IEEE

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    De Tournemire, P.; Nitti, D.; Perot, E.; Migliore, D.; and Sironi, A. 2020. A large scale event-based detection dataset for automotive. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08499

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Ding, S.; Chen, J.; Wang, Y.; Kang, Y.; Song, W.; Cheng, J.; and Cao, Y. 2023. E-MLB: Multilevel benchmark for event-based camera denoising. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 26: 65--76

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Dong, W.; Zhu, H.; Lin, S.; Luo, X.; Shen, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, J.; Guo, G.; and Zhang, B. 2024. Fusion-mamba for cross-modality object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09146

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; Uszkoreit, J.; and Houlsby, N. 2021. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. ICLR

    2021

  8. [8]

    Duan, Y. 2024. LED: A Large-scale Real-world Paired Dataset for Event Camera Denoising. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 25637--25647

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Finateu, T.; Niwa, A.; Matolin, D.; Tsuchimoto, K.; Mascheroni, A.; Reynaud, E.; Mostafalu, P.; Brady, F.; Chotard, L.; LeGoff, F.; et al. 2020. 5.10 A 1280 720 back-illuminated stacked temporal contrast event-based vision sensor with 4.86 m pixels, 1.066 GEPS readout, program...

    2020

  2. [10]

    J.; Conradt, J.; Daniilidis, K.; et al

    Gallego, G.; Delbr \"u ck, T.; Orchard, G.; Bartolozzi, C.; Taba, B.; Censi, A.; Leutenegger, S.; Davison, A. J.; Conradt, J.; Daniilidis, K.; et al. 2020. Event-based vision: A survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(1): 154--180

    2020

  3. [11]

    Ge, Z.; Liu, S.; Wang, F.; Li, Z.; and Sun, J. 2021. YOLOX: Exceeding YOLO Series in 2021. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08430

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gehrig, M.; and Scaramuzza, D. 2023. Recurrent vision transformers for object detection with event cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 13884--13893

    2023

  5. [13]

    Gu, A.; and Dao, T. 2023. Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Guo, H.; Li, J.; Dai, T.; Ouyang, Z.; Ren, X.; and Xia, S.-T. 2024. MambaIR: A Simple Baseline for Image Restoration with State-Space Model. In ECCV

    2024

  7. [15]

    Huang, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, S.; Wu, Z.; Wang, X.; and Jiang, B. 2024. Mamba-fetrack: Frame-event tracking via state space model. In Chinese Conference on Pattern Recognition and Computer Vision (PRCV), 3--18. Springer

    2024

  8. [16]

    Huang, K.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, J.; and Tao, D. 2023. Event-based simultaneous localization and mapping: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09793

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kim, J.; Bae, J.; Park, G.; Zhang, D.; and Kim, Y. M. 2021. N-imagenet: Towards robust, fine-grained object recognition with event cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2146--2156

    2021

  10. [18]

    Li, C.; Liu, Z.; Lin, S.; Wang, Y.; and Zhao, X. 2024. Intention-convolution and hybrid-attention network for vehicle trajectory prediction. Expert Systems with Applications, 236: 121412

    2024

  11. [19]

    Li, J.; Li, J.; Zhu, L.; Xiang, X.; Huang, T.; and Tian, Y. 2022. Asynchronous spatio-temporal memory network for continuous event-based object detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31: 2975--2987

    2022

  12. [20]

    Lichtsteiner, P.; Posch, C.; and Delbruck, T. 2008. A 128 128 120 dB 15 s Latency Asynchronous Temporal Contrast Vision Sensor. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 43(2): 566--576

    2008

  13. [21]

    Lin, T.-Y.; Maire, M.; Belongie, S.; Hays, J.; Perona, P.; Ramanan, D.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Zitnick, C. L. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 1...

    2014

  14. [22]

    Liu, Y.; Tian, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Yu, H.; Xie, L.; Wang, Y.; Ye, Q.; and Liu, Y. 2024 a . VMamba: Visual State Space Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10166

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Liu, Z.; Cheng, J.; Fan, J.; Lin, S.; Wang, Y.; and Zhao, X. 2023. Multi-modal fusion based on depth adaptive mechanism for 3D object detection. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 1--11

    2023

  16. [24]

    Liu, Z.; Li, C.; Wang, Y.; Yang, N.; Fan, X.; Ma, J.; and Zhao, X. 2024 b . Multi-scale Temporal Fusion Transformer for Incomplete Vehicle Trajectory Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 1--14

    2024

  17. [25]

    Liu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Gao, B.; An, Y.; and Zhao, X. 2024 c . Boosting Visual Recognition in Real-world Degradations via Unsupervised Feature Enhancement Module with Deep Channel Prior. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 1--14

    2024

  18. [26]

    Liu, Z.; Yang, N.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhao, X.; and Wang, F.-Y. 2024 d . Enhancing traffic object detection in variable illumination with rgb-event fusion. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 25: 20335--20350

    2024

  19. [27]

    N.; and Agneeswaran, V

    Patro, B. N.; and Agneeswaran, V. S. 2024. Mamba-360: Survey of state space models as transformer alternative for long sequence modelling: Methods, applications, and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16112

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Peng, Y.; Li, H.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, X.; and Wu, F. 2024. Scene Adaptive Sparse Transformer for Event-based Object Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 16794--16804

    2024

  21. [29]

    Peng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Xiong, Z.; Sun, X.; and Wu, F. 2023. Get: Group event transformer for event-based vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 6038--6048

    2023

  22. [30]

    Perot, E.; de Tournemire, P.; Nitti, D.; Masci, J.; and Sironi, A. 2020. Learning to Detect Objects with a 1 Megapixel Event Camera. In Larochelle, H.; Ranzato, M.; Hadsell, R.; Balcan, M.; and Lin, H., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, 16639-...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Sayed, M.; and Brostow, G. 2021. Improved handling of motion blur in online object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1706--1716

    2021

  24. [32]

    Schaefer, S.; Gehrig, D.; and Scaramuzza, D. 2022. Aegnn: Asynchronous event-based graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 12371--12381

    2022

  25. [33]

    Shi, X.; Chen, Z.; Wang, H.; Yeung, D.-Y.; Wong, W.-K.; and Woo, W.-c. 2015. Convolutional LSTM network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28

    2015

  26. [34]

    Shi, Y.; Dong, M.; and Xu, C. 2024. Multi-Scale VMamba: Hierarchy in Hierarchy Visual State Space Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14174

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Son, B.; Suh, Y.; Kim, S.; Jung, H.; Kim, J.-S.; Shin, C.; Park, K.; Lee, K.; Park, J.; Woo, J.; et al. 2017. 4.1 A 640 480 dynamic vision sensor with a 9 m pixel and 300Meps address-event representation. In 2017 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), 66--67. IEEE

    2017

  28. [36]

    A.; Chakravarthi, B.; Vaghela, A.; Wei, H.; and Yang, Y

    Verma, A. A.; Chakravarthi, B.; Vaghela, A.; Wei, H.; and Yang, Y. 2024. eTraM: Event-based Traffic Monitoring Dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 22637--22646

    2024

  29. [37]

    Wan, Z.; Wang, Y.; Tan, G.; Cao, Y.; and Zha, Z.-J. 2022. S2N: Suppression-Strengthen Network for Event-Based Recognition Under Variant Illuminations. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23--27, 2022, Proceedings, Part III, 716--7...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Xu, R.; Yang, S.; Wang, Y.; Du, B.; and Chen, H. 2024. A survey on vision mamba: Models, applications and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18861

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Yan, Q.; Gong, D.; and Zhang, Y. 2018. Two-stream convolutional networks for blind image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 28(5): 2200--2211

    2018

  32. [40]

    M.; and Huang, T

    Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Nasrabadi, N. M.; and Huang, T. S. 2013. Multi-metric learning for multi-sensor fusion based classification. Information Fusion, 14(4): 431--440

    2013

  33. [41]

    Z.; Yuan, L.; Chaney, K.; and Daniilidis, K

    Zhu, A. Z.; Yuan, L.; Chaney, K.; and Daniilidis, K. 2019. Unsupervised event-based learning of optical flow, depth, and egomotion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 989--997

    2019

  34. [42]

    Zhu, L.; Liao, B.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, X.; Liu, W.; and Wang, X. 2024. Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09417

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zou, W.; Gao, H.; Yang, W.; and Liu, T. 2024. Wave-Mamba: Wavelet State Space Model for Ultra-High-Definition Low-Light Image Enhancement. In ACM Multimedia 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Zubi\'c, N.; Gehrig, D.; Gehrig, M.; and Scaramuzza, D. 2023. From Chaos Comes Order: Ordering Event Representations for Object Recognition and Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 12846--12856

    2023

  37. [45]

    Zubic, N.; Gehrig, M.; and Scaramuzza, D. 2024. State space models for event cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 5819--5828

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.